亚洲男人的天堂2018av,欧美草比,久久久久久免费视频精选,国色天香在线看免费,久久久久亚洲av成人片仓井空

ASR error correction continues to serve as an important part of post-processing for speech recognition systems. Traditionally, these models are trained with supervised training using the decoding results of the underlying ASR system and the reference text. This approach is computationally intensive and the model needs to be re-trained when switching the underlying ASR model. Recent years have seen the development of large language models and their ability to perform natural language processing tasks in a zero-shot manner. In this paper, we take ChatGPT as an example to examine its ability to perform ASR error correction in the zero-shot or 1-shot settings. We use the ASR N-best list as model input and propose unconstrained error correction and N-best constrained error correction methods. Results on a Conformer-Transducer model and the pre-trained Whisper model show that we can largely improve the ASR system performance with error correction using the powerful ChatGPT model.

Spoken Language Understanding (SLU) is a task that aims to extract semantic information from spoken utterances. Previous research has made progress in end-to-end SLU by using paired speech-text data, such as pre-trained Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) models or paired text as intermediate targets. However, acquiring paired transcripts is expensive and impractical for unwritten languages. On the other hand, Textless SLU extracts semantic information from speech without utilizing paired transcripts. However, the absence of intermediate targets and training guidance for textless SLU often results in suboptimal performance. In this work, inspired by the content-disentangled discrete units from self-supervised speech models, we proposed to use discrete units as intermediate guidance to improve textless SLU performance. Our method surpasses the baseline method on five SLU benchmark corpora. Additionally, we find that unit guidance facilitates few-shot learning and enhances the model's ability to handle noise.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success in the field of natural language processing, enabling better human-computer interaction using natural language. However, the seamless integration of speech signals into LLMs has not been explored well. The "decoder-only" architecture has also not been well studied for speech processing tasks. In this research, we introduce Speech-LLaMA, a novel approach that effectively incorporates acoustic information into text-based large language models. Our method leverages Connectionist Temporal Classification and a simple audio encoder to map the compressed acoustic features to the continuous semantic space of the LLM. In addition, we further probe the decoder-only architecture for speech-to-text tasks by training a smaller scale randomly initialized speech-LLaMA model from speech-text paired data alone. We conduct experiments on multilingual speech-to-text translation tasks and demonstrate a significant improvement over strong baselines, highlighting the potential advantages of decoder-only models for speech-to-text conversion.

Lexical matching remains the de facto evaluation method for open-domain question answering (QA). Unfortunately, lexical matching fails completely when a plausible candidate answer does not appear in the list of gold answers, which is increasingly the case as we shift from extractive to generative models. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) for QA aggravates lexical matching failures since candidate answers become longer, thereby making matching with the gold answers even more challenging. Without accurate evaluation, the true progress in open-domain QA remains unknown. In this paper, we conduct a thorough analysis of various open-domain QA models, including LLMs, by manually evaluating their answers on a subset of NQ-open, a popular benchmark. Our assessments reveal that while the true performance of all models is significantly underestimated, the performance of the InstructGPT (zero-shot) LLM increases by nearly +60%, making it on par with existing top models, and the InstructGPT (few-shot) model actually achieves a new state-of-the-art on NQ-open. We also find that more than 50% of lexical matching failures are attributed to semantically equivalent answers. We further demonstrate that regex matching ranks QA models consistent with human judgments, although still suffering from unnecessary strictness. Finally, we demonstrate that automated evaluation models are a reasonable surrogate for lexical matching in some circumstances, but not for long-form answers generated by LLMs. The automated models struggle in detecting hallucinations in LLM answers and are thus unable to evaluate LLMs. At this time, there appears to be no substitute for human evaluation.

The unprecedented performance of large language models (LLMs) necessitates improvements in evaluations. Rather than merely exploring the breadth of LLM abilities, we believe meticulous and thoughtful designs are essential to thorough, unbiased, and applicable evaluations. Given the importance of world knowledge to LLMs, we construct a Knowledge-oriented LLM Assessment benchmark (KoLA), in which we carefully design three crucial factors: (1) For ability modeling, we mimic human cognition to form a four-level taxonomy of knowledge-related abilities, covering $19$ tasks. (2) For data, to ensure fair comparisons, we use both Wikipedia, a corpus prevalently pre-trained by LLMs, along with continuously collected emerging corpora, aiming to evaluate the capacity to handle unseen data and evolving knowledge. (3) For evaluation criteria, we adopt a contrastive system, including overall standard scores for better numerical comparability across tasks and models and a unique self-contrast metric for automatically evaluating knowledge hallucination. We evaluate $21$ open-source and commercial LLMs and obtain some intriguing findings. The KoLA dataset and open-participation leaderboard are publicly released at //kola.xlore.cn and will be continuously updated to provide references for developing LLMs and knowledge-related systems.

Deep text understanding, which requires the connections between a given document and prior knowledge beyond its text, has been highlighted by many benchmarks in recent years. However, these benchmarks have encountered two major limitations. On the one hand, most of them require human annotation of knowledge, which leads to limited knowledge coverage. On the other hand, they usually use choices or spans in the texts as the answers, which results in narrow answer space. To overcome these limitations, we build a new challenging benchmark named KoRc in this paper. Compared with previous benchmarks, KoRC has two advantages, i.e., broad knowledge coverage and flexible answer format. Specifically, we utilize massive knowledge bases to guide annotators or large language models (LLMs) to construct knowledgable questions. Moreover, we use labels in knowledge bases rather than spans or choices as the final answers. We test state-of-the-art models on KoRC and the experimental results show that the strongest baseline only achieves 68.3% and 30.0% F1 measure in the in-distribution and out-of-distribution test set, respectively. These results indicate that deep text understanding is still an unsolved challenge. The benchmark dataset, leaderboard, and baseline methods are released in //github.com/THU-KEG/KoRC.

Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry, owing to their unprecedented performance in various applications. As LLMs continue to play a vital role in both research and daily use, their evaluation becomes increasingly critical, not only at the task level, but also at the society level for better understanding of their potential risks. Over the past years, significant efforts have been made to examine LLMs from various perspectives. This paper presents a comprehensive review of these evaluation methods for LLMs, focusing on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate. Firstly, we provide an overview from the perspective of evaluation tasks, encompassing general natural language processing tasks, reasoning, medical usage, ethics, educations, natural and social sciences, agent applications, and other areas. Secondly, we answer the `where' and `how' questions by diving into the evaluation methods and benchmarks, which serve as crucial components in assessing performance of LLMs. Then, we summarize the success and failure cases of LLMs in different tasks. Finally, we shed light on several future challenges that lie ahead in LLMs evaluation. Our aim is to offer invaluable insights to researchers in the realm of LLMs evaluation, thereby aiding the development of more proficient LLMs. Our key point is that evaluation should be treated as an essential discipline to better assist the development of LLMs. We consistently maintain the related open-source materials at: //github.com/MLGroupJLU/LLM-eval-survey.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Conventionally, human evaluations are considered the gold standard in natural language generation. Recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. Nonetheless, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate the behavior of both crowd-sourced human and LLM-based judges when comparing outputs from different models. To accomplish this, we curate a dataset comprising intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings indicate that despite the potentially greater danger posed by factual errors, answers with factual errors were still rated more favorably compared to answers that were too short or contained grammatical errors. This highlights a concerning bias in the evaluation process. To address this issue, we propose to independently evaluate machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, notable improvement is not observed in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, suggesting the need for further investigation and refinement.

ChatGPT is a large language model developed by OpenAI. Despite its impressive performance across various tasks, no prior work has investigated its capability in the biomedical domain yet. To this end, this paper aims to evaluate the performance of ChatGPT on various benchmark biomedical tasks, such as relation extraction, document classification, question answering, and summarization. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that conducts an extensive evaluation of ChatGPT in the biomedical domain. Interestingly, we find based on our evaluation that in biomedical datasets that have smaller training sets, zero-shot ChatGPT even outperforms the state-of-the-art fine-tuned generative transformer models, such as BioGPT and BioBART. This suggests that ChatGPT's pre-training on large text corpora makes it quite specialized even in the biomedical domain. Our findings demonstrate that ChatGPT has the potential to be a valuable tool for various tasks in the biomedical domain that lack large annotated data.